Activity

I don't think this is a good idea - we may end up "leaking" connections for other clients - or messing things up for clients which have randomized host lists.. (though for this, I guess we can have another fix - to make array lists containing the same hosts be made as the same key (for hashing purposes)) for persistent connections.

A better idea would be to make the persistent connection stuff enforcible by an INI config entry (so the code in the ctor doesn't need to change) - chances are such an option already exists - this would be a fairly sufficient workaround for some of the issues we've been seeing while not breaking code for those people who do not want these so-called persistent connections.

Mark Nunberg
added a comment - 04/Feb/13 2:36 PM I don't think this is a good idea - we may end up "leaking" connections for other clients - or messing things up for clients which have randomized host lists.. (though for this, I guess we can have another fix - to make array lists containing the same hosts be made as the same key (for hashing purposes)) for persistent connections.
A better idea would be to make the persistent connection stuff enforcible by an INI config entry (so the code in the ctor doesn't need to change) - chances are such an option already exists - this would be a fairly sufficient workaround for some of the issues we've been seeing while not breaking code for those people who do not want these so-called persistent connections.